CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ3362574
Regular
Oct 18, 2012

LAURA BIGGS vs. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MEDICAL CENTER, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Laura Biggs' Petition for Reconsideration in this case against San Bernardino County Medical Center and San Bernardino County. The dismissal was based on the WCAB's review of the record and adoption of the administrative law judge's report and recommendation. The report provided the reasoning for the dismissal, which the WCAB incorporated by reference. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration was officially dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalReport and RecommendationAdministrative Law JudgeSan Bernardino County Medical CenterLaura BiggsWorkers' Compensation CaseLegal DocumentCase Number
References
0
Case No. ADJ11952165
Regular
Nov 25, 2019

BILL HUMPHREY vs. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, PSI Through CJPIA, administered by YORK RISK GROUP

This case involved applicant Bill Humphrey's claim for psychiatric injury against the City of San Luis Obispo. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that Humphrey sustained an industrial psychiatric injury. The Board affirmed the judge's determination that while a job reclassification was a good faith personnel action, it was not the substantial cause of the injury. Instead, increased job duties and applicant's internal pressure were deemed the predominant causes of his psychiatric condition.

Labor Code Section 3208.3good faith personnel actionpsychiatric injurypredominant causesubstantial causemultilevel analysisRolda v. Pitney BowesInc.panel qualified medical evaluatorPQME
References
2
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 1998

Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The County of Westchester appealed orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The Supreme Court had granted the Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Association, Inc.'s petition to quash administrative subpoenas (Matter No. 1) and denied the County's motion to enjoin the Association from challenging the subpoenas (Matter No. 2). The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding that the County failed to adhere to Workers’ Compensation Law § 300.10 (c). This statute mandates that subpoenas to a claimant's treating physician can only be issued upon the physician's non-appearance at the first adjournment, not as a routine practice prior to attempts at voluntary appearance. The court emphasized that the County's prior practice violated the statute and impeded the remedial goals of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Administrative LawWorkers' CompensationSubpoena ComplianceAppellate CourtLabor RelationsStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessCollective BargainingJudicial ReviewPublic Sector Employment
References
3
Case No. SDO 0249452
Regular
May 12, 2008

GAIL GODFREY vs. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, PROFESSIONAL RESOURCE ENTERPRISE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION by BROADSPIRE for SUPERIOR PACIFIC CASUALTY COMPANY

The California Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found that the County of San Diego was the applicant's special employer, making them jointly and severally liable for her injury. This determination was made despite a contract stating the applicant was not a County employee, as the Board found sufficient evidence of San Diego's control over her work. Consequently, the County is considered "other insurance available" to the applicant, meaning CIGA is not liable for her benefits.

CIGAcovered claimspecial employergeneral employerlabor brokerageindustrial injuryinsolvent insurerother insurancejoint and several liabilitycontractual exclusion
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00069 [223 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2024

Matter of County of Nassau v. Nassau County Sheriff's Corr. Officers' Benevolent Assn.

The County of Nassau appealed an order denying its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award had concluded that the County violated a collective bargaining agreement by denying General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits to correction officers who missed no work time but sought medical treatment for work-related injuries or illnesses. The Supreme Court initially denied the County's petition and granted the union's cross-petition to confirm the award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this order, finding the arbitration award to be irrational because the claimants neither sought payment of salary/wages nor reimbursement for out-of-pocket medical expenses, thus not requiring the benefits outlined in General Municipal Law § 207-c. Consequently, the County's petition to vacate the arbitration award was granted, and the cross-petition to confirm was denied.

Arbitration AwardVacaturCollective Bargaining AgreementGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cCorrection OfficersMedical BenefitsLost TimePublic Policy ExceptionIrrational AwardAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suffolk County Ass'n of Municipal Employees, Inc. v. County of Suffolk

The plaintiff, Suffolk County Association of Municipal Employees, Inc., appealed an order dismissing its complaint against Suffolk County. The Union sought to permanently enjoin the County from imposing mandatory furloughs and discharging employees under a collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied a preliminary injunction. The appellate court modified the order, finding that the Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction. However, it affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, stating that loss of employment does not constitute irreparable harm as affected workers are entitled to reinstatement and back pay if they prevail.

Public EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementMandatory FurloughsEmployee DischargeSubject Matter JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmBudget DeficitPersonnel ReductionsAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zamot v. Monroe County Department of Human Services

Plaintiff Luis Zamot, acting pro se, filed a Title VII lawsuit against his former employer, the Monroe County Department of Human Services, alleging a hostile work environment based on gender. Zamot claimed he experienced harassment from female colleagues and administrative law judges, including being introduced as 'the new Barb' and facing condescending behavior. A bench trial was held in November 2009. The court found no credible evidence of gender-based harassment or discriminatory abuse. The decision concluded that any conflicts were related to Zamot's poor work performance and demeanor, not his gender, and therefore, judgment was granted in favor of the defendant.

Hostile Work EnvironmentGender DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActEmployment LawBench TrialPoor PerformanceWorkplace ConductSupervisor RelationsAdministrative LawMagistrate Judge Decision
References
14
Case No. ADJ9268174
Regular
Jan 07, 2015

CHARLES BURNS vs. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the County of San Bernardino's petition for removal regarding a judge's order on subpoenas. The County sought to quash all subpoenas for records related to an inmate's claimed industrial injury, arguing the inmate was not an employee. The Board found the County failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the order, even if the initial petition to quash was untimely. If the inmate is not an employee, the County will not be liable for costs related to the records or medical-legal expenses.

Subpoena Duces TecumPetition for RemovalOrder Quashing SubpoenaPenal Code Section 4017Labor Code Section 3370Inmate EmploymentRisk ManagementSan Bernardino Sheriff's DepartmentArrowhead Regional Medical CenterSubstantial Prejudice
References
1
Case No. ADJ9413996; ADJ9413375; ADJ9413995; ADJ9413379; ADJ10118222; ADJ14275087
Regular
Aug 04, 2025

ERIC TAYLOR vs. CITY OF WATSONVILLE, TRINDEL INSURANCE FUND for COUNTY OF SAN BENITO

This case concerns petitions for reconsideration filed by defendants City of Watsonville and County of San Benito against an Amended Joint Findings, Award & Order from May 2, 2025. The original order found applicant Eric Taylor to have 100 percent permanent and total disability, with liability assigned to the County of San Benito. Both defendants dispute the method used for combining disability ratings and aspects of liability. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted both petitions, deferring a final decision after reconsideration for further review of the merits and the entire record.

Labor Code section 5909Petition for ReconsiderationCombined Values ChartPermanent and Total DisabilityApportionmentSection 3212.5Section 4663(e)ContributionReimbursementMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 5,716 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational